Monker wrote:Good. That is the way it should be. Website owners are responsible for the content posted on THEIR webspace...and that includes what is posted to message forums. When you go to a message forum and post, you are not excercising a right to free speech. You are using somebody elses "property" to express yourself. The owner is responsible for keeping things under control and "legal". That may including kicking people off, shutting down topics, removing forums, banning IP's...or removing the entire web forum from the site. It is THEIR web space that you are given the privilege to post to, not the "right".

It is no different then VH1 shutting down their forums because people were abusing them. Or, Sony shutting down their Journey forums because of how they were being used. Or, how Journey was so restrictive on what was posted to their forum. The OWNER controls the web space - not the users. If the owner can not control it, then they should take it down.

If people are using the forum for illegal things, then the owner is responsible. That is what I warned about here not too long ago (I don't remember what the details were). Or, what I said years ago when people were posting nude photos...that Andrew's site may start being considered an adult site.

Site owners censoring certain types of posts, or ads, is not restricting free speech. The people posting such things are free to go whereever else they can to do the same thing. Or, they can start their own websites. Or, they can post to Usenet where there are no restrictions. It is like submitting an article or an ad to a magazine. That magazine has the right to refuse to publish it. Period. It is not censorship or violating some right because YOU have the right to submit the article or ad to other magazines...or to self-publish it.

Craigslist is whining about what THEY should have been able to control from the start. It is THEIR fault they lost control and their personals are being abused. It is THEIR responsibility to either get control, or end the service. THEY chose to end the service and then whine about a problem THEY allowed. Get over it already.

This crusade is not spearheaded by website owners. It's led by the government, which should not be in the business of regulating content it disagrees with on a moral basis - with limited exceptions.

The VH1 forums towards the very end were full of spam ads. Nobody was using them. Before that, it was just a lot of all SA versus Perry mudslinging. Not even a remotely close comparison.

As for websites like Craigslist doing a better job policing the millions of ads on their site...give me a break. You couldn't even manage a single dating ad.

I used Sony and VH1 as comparisons because they lost control of their webspace and THEY SHUT THEM DOWN. Craigslist does not have control of the "personals" service of their webspace. They should shut it down since it is not being used as intended and they have lost control. And, since it is dealing in illegal prostitution, they should face charges if they don't.

It's against the law. Period. It's not even a matter of opinion...it's FACT. If you want to make a meaningful argument, start your own online forum that can be used as a brothel and when you end up in court, then argue this ridiculous "freedom of speech"/"morality" case.

What I want to know is why they wanted so badly to keep it a secret? It sounds like they ignored the order on Friday and argued about it court, and pissed off the judge. Hannity went on the defense about it, saying he asked for advice once in a while, but never paid him, etc...which you EXPECT him to say. Obviously, there is something more here that they don't want anybody to know...I bet Hannity has his own harem of women he has NDA"s with.

ohsherrie wrote:Yes, they shut down before they were shut down and faced procecution for allowing prostitution to be pimped on their website. Prostitution is against the law. Murder is against the law. Should it be allowed to be arranged for hire on websites?

Why are you comparing sex between consenting adults to murder? We have always had dumb laws. Prohibition? Sodomy? Interracial marriage? This is a huge step backwards.

ohsherrie wrote:Nope, not a non-sequitur at all. The point of this discussion is infringement on Freedom of Speech, not how qraphical the ads on pimping sites are. My use of the description of the threats was simply to suggest that this could very well be taken very seriously by the recipient and should be by law enforcement. Would finding this person who sent the threats and forcing him/her to stop be infringing on the threatener's right to Freedom of Speech? Does that therefore make it logical or ok that Law Enforcement ignored all the warnings about Nikolas Cruz and allowed a lot of kids to be shot up?

Now you are comparing sex between consenting adults to threats of a high school massacre. Nobody gets hurt when two consenting adults fuck. If we want to apply this "moral crusade" logic to Nicholas Cruz, then the social media sites that hosted his threats should be shut down by the government. That is what you are arguing.

I'm not talking about sex between consenting adults. I'm talking about freedom of speech. Both murder and prostitution are illegal and I'm asking you if you think shutting down a website that allowed murder for hire like Backpage allowed sex for hire would also be an attack on freedom of speech.

The example of Nikolas Cruz was because, due to Cruz's apparent mental health problems, after the Parkland shooting when people started asking for the inclusion of mental health information in the material available in a background check, some people suggested that this would be infringing on the rights of menally ill people. So, I'm asking you if arresting him for running his mouth, regardless of where he did it, and getting him psychiatric help would have been infringing on his 1st amendment rights.

If websites are supposed to be exempt from the laws of this country then they should also be exempt from the protection of the Constitution.

"US Congress just passed HR 1865,FOSTA, seeking to subject websites to criminal and civil liability when third parties (users) misuse online personals unlawfully.Any tool or service can be misused. We can't take such risk without jeopardizing all our other services, so we are regretfully taking craigslist personals offline. Hopefully we can bring them back some day. To the millions of spouses, partners, and couples who met through craigslist, we wish you every happiness!"

Good. That is the way it should be. Website owners are responsible for the content posted on THEIR webspace...and that includes what is posted to message forums. When you go to a message forum and post, you are not excercising a right to free speech. You are using somebody elses "property" to express yourself. The owner is responsible for keeping things under control and "legal". That may including kicking people off, shutting down topics, removing forums, banning IP's...or removing the entire web forum from the site. It is THEIR web space that you are given the privilege to post to, not the "right".

It is no different then VH1 shutting down their forums because people were abusing them. Or, Sony shutting down their Journey forums because of how they were being used. Or, how Journey was so restrictive on what was posted to their forum. The OWNER controls the web space - not the users. If the owner can not control it, then they should take it down.

If people are using the forum for illegal things, then the owner is responsible. That is what I warned about here not too long ago (I don't remember what the details were). Or, what I said years ago when people were posting nude photos...that Andrew's site may start being considered an adult site.

Site owners censoring certain types of posts, or ads, is not restricting free speech. The people posting such things are free to go whereever else they can to do the same thing. Or, they can start their own websites. Or, they can post to Usenet where there are no restrictions. It is like submitting an article or an ad to a magazine. That magazine has the right to refuse to publish it. Period. It is not censorship or violating some right because YOU have the right to submit the article or ad to other magazines...or to self-publish it.

Craigslist is whining about what THEY should have been able to control from the start. It is THEIR fault they lost control and their personals are being abused. It is THEIR responsibility to either get control, or end the service. THEY chose to end the service and then whine about a problem THEY allowed. Get over it already.

ohsherrie wrote:I'm not talking about sex between consenting adults. I'm talking about freedom of speech. Both murder and prostitution are illegal and I'm asking you if you think shutting down a website that allowed murder for hire like Backpage allowed sex for hire would also be an attack on freedom of speech.

1) This has already happened. In one notable case, a male cannibal was soliciting people via Craig's List to be killed and devoured. Did the site get shut down? No. The authorities got involved. There are other examples of this.

2) Backpage didn't allow sex for hire. They allowed personal ads. You are also dancing around the fact that ALL CL personal forums - including those for friendship - have now been shut down due to fear of government reprisal. Reddit forums on video games are now closed. How is that OK?

ohsherrie wrote:The example of Nikolas Cruz was because, due to Cruz's apparent mental health problems, after the Parkland shooting when people started asking for the inclusion of mental health information in the material available in a background check, some people suggested that this would be infringing on the rights of menally ill people. So, I'm asking you if arresting him for running his mouth, regardless of where he did it, and getting him psychiatric help would have been infringing on his 1st amendment rights.

I would not have arrested Cruz. However, guns should not have been in his household. His foster family needs to be held accountable.

ohsherrie wrote:If websites are supposed to be exempt from the laws of this country then they should also be exempt from the protection of the Constitution.

So enforce the laws. Don't use a mallet instead of a scalpel.

"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater

"US Congress just passed HR 1865,FOSTA, seeking to subject websites to criminal and civil liability when third parties (users) misuse online personals unlawfully.Any tool or service can be misused. We can't take such risk without jeopardizing all our other services, so we are regretfully taking craigslist personals offline. Hopefully we can bring them back some day. To the millions of spouses, partners, and couples who met through craigslist, we wish you every happiness!"

Good. That is the way it should be. Website owners are responsible for the content posted on THEIR webspace...and that includes what is posted to message forums. When you go to a message forum and post, you are not excercising a right to free speech. You are using somebody elses "property" to express yourself. The owner is responsible for keeping things under control and "legal". That may including kicking people off, shutting down topics, removing forums, banning IP's...or removing the entire web forum from the site. It is THEIR web space that you are given the privilege to post to, not the "right".

It is no different then VH1 shutting down their forums because people were abusing them. Or, Sony shutting down their Journey forums because of how they were being used. Or, how Journey was so restrictive on what was posted to their forum. The OWNER controls the web space - not the users. If the owner can not control it, then they should take it down.

If people are using the forum for illegal things, then the owner is responsible. That is what I warned about here not too long ago (I don't remember what the details were). Or, what I said years ago when people were posting nude photos...that Andrew's site may start being considered an adult site.

Site owners censoring certain types of posts, or ads, is not restricting free speech. The people posting such things are free to go whereever else they can to do the same thing. Or, they can start their own websites. Or, they can post to Usenet where there are no restrictions. It is like submitting an article or an ad to a magazine. That magazine has the right to refuse to publish it. Period. It is not censorship or violating some right because YOU have the right to submit the article or ad to other magazines...or to self-publish it.

Craigslist is whining about what THEY should have been able to control from the start. It is THEIR fault they lost control and their personals are being abused. It is THEIR responsibility to either get control, or end the service. THEY chose to end the service and then whine about a problem THEY allowed. Get over it already.

Damn Monker, you rocked that one!

Oh please. Comparing a dying Journey forum to Craig'sList is just stupid. CL covers nearly a hundred countries and thousands of cities. The idea that every single post will be closely monitored is preposterous. These actions are going to make the black market for sex trafficking, as well as sex worker murders, completely explode. In Amsterdam, they are laughing their wooden clogs off at us. Pot shops being busted, escort websites being shut down...these are the actions of a puritanical Nanny state. Since Google can be used to search for various things (including murder, sex, pot etc) maybe we should censor it, just like China does. You guys sound completely backwards.

"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater

Hannity has no core values, no ethics. His shilling for the Bush/Cheney regime was grotesque. I give him credit for recently supporting Assange/Wikileaks. But it is obvious a marriage of convenience. As soon as a Democrat is back in power, he will switch back to his former ways.

"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater

ohsherrie wrote:I'm not talking about sex between consenting adults. I'm talking about freedom of speech. Both murder and prostitution are illegal and I'm asking you if you think shutting down a website that allowed murder for hire like Backpage allowed sex for hire would also be an attack on freedom of speech.

1) This has already happened. In one notable case, a male cannibal was soliciting people via Craig's List to be killed and devoured. Did the site get shut down? No. The authorities got involved. There are other examples of this.

2) Backpage didn't allow sex for hire. They allowed personal ads. You are also dancing around the fact that ALL CL personal forums - including those for friendship - have now been shut down due to fear of government reprisal. Reddit forums on video games are now closed. How is that OK?

ohsherrie wrote:The example of Nikolas Cruz was because, due to Cruz's apparent mental health problems, after the Parkland shooting when people started asking for the inclusion of mental health information in the material available in a background check, some people suggested that this would be infringing on the rights of menally ill people. So, I'm asking you if arresting him for running his mouth, regardless of where he did it, and getting him psychiatric help would have been infringing on his 1st amendment rights.

I would not have arrested Cruz. However, guns should not have been in his household. His foster family needs to be held accountable.

ohsherrie wrote:If websites are supposed to be exempt from the laws of this country then they should also be exempt from the protection of the Constitution.

So enforce the laws. Don't use a mallet instead of a scalpel.

I doubt that there are so many cases of cannibals asking to be devoured that the webmaster would have much problem policing it for themselves, obviously the prostitution is a little harder to control so they would rather shut down the forums where it is a natural fit than Police it that closely.

I've obviously never been to either website, but do they have gun forums? I imagine it would be at least as easy to work out some kind of code for soliciting murder for hire on some of those. If that were to be the case would a law to stop it be infringing on those people's freedom of speech?

I agree that the foster parents should have had their guns in a safe where the kid couldn't get to them, but I wasn't asking who was at fault for him getting to the school with guns? I asked if forcing him into a psychiatric care, whether by law enforcement taking him into custody or through social services because of things he was saying would have infringed on his 1st amendment rights?

“Hoover is spinning in his grave,” said a former FBI official. “Making money from total failure," in reference to Comey plugging his book, A Higher Loyalty.

A current official with the FBI said it was strange how Comey seemed so pleased with how things played out. “It’s how happy he looked on TV while cashing in on the biggest mistake in history. His mistake,” they said. “Jim Comey made that mistake. We all just wonder what could have been and what we could’ve done to change it.”

One of the more fascinating nuggets not broadcast in Sunday’s interview with James Comey on ABC News was an exchange over the Clinton email investigation.

Interviewer George Stephanopoulos asked the former FBI Director about Clinton staffers destroying their Blackberries, a fact that has understandably raised suspicion for those who believe Hillary Clinton and those surrounding her may have destroyed evidence during the 2016 investigation overseen by Comey and Andrew McCabe.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: One of the things that President Trump and his allies bring up is that at some point, her staff smashed Blackberries, also whitewashed the server?

JAMES COMEY: Yeah. There was evidence that old Blackberries, after she was finished with them, they destroyed them, which I think a fair number of people do to make sure that if it’s resold, someone doesn’t end up with your information. And that after they produced information back to the d— to the Department of State, they used— a software program to clean the server to make sure there was nothing on it, or clean laptops to make sure there’s nothing on them.

Think about this for a second.

James Comey thinks it’s pretty normal for people to destroy their cell phones when they are done using them because “if it’s resold, someone doesn’t end up with your information.” Um… how, exactly, does one sell a destroyed cell phone? Perhaps Comey meant that he thinks it’s common for people to destroy their cell phones to ensure that they are not resold.

Perhaps Mr. Stephanopoulos (a former White House official during Mrs. Clinton’s time as First Lady) should have asked a follow-up question on this one.

ohsherrie wrote:I doubt that there are so many cases of cannibals asking to be devoured that the webmaster would have much problem policing it for themselves, obviously the prostitution is a little harder to control so they would rather shut down the forums where it is a natural fit than Police it that closely.

I've obviously never been to either website, but do they have gun forums? I imagine it would be at least as easy to work out some kind of code for soliciting murder for hire on some of those. If that were to be the case would a law to stop it be infringing on those people's freedom of speech?

I agree that the foster parents should have had their guns in a safe where the kid couldn't get to them, but I wasn't asking who was at fault for him getting to the school with guns? I asked if forcing him into a psychiatric care, whether by law enforcement taking him into custody or through social services because of things he was saying would have infringed on his 1st amendment rights?

The one thing that hasn't been mentioned here about this subject is the sites that reside in what has been labeled "the dark web" . These are sites that are not indexed and therefore do not show up in standard browsers. Sites that can be accessed by special browsers such as TOR which mask the users IP address. This is where a lot of the online illegal activity occurs. Activity such as sex trafficking, human trafficking, pedo porn, illegal drugs, illegal firearms and the sale of stolen identities and CC info.. The FBI and DOJ have dedicated task forces for searching out, monitoring, shutting down sites and arresting those that operate and use such sites.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

I would love to see a unified Korea in my lifetime. Not sure that will happen, but announcing the end of the war is not something I thought I'd see anytime soon. I think when North Korea saw the winds change with China, and the new sanctions that actually hurt, they had to finally just evaluate their place in the workd. It seems like an easy decision for a logical person. But leadership there has been nowhere near logical. I hope this progresses well.

Memorex wrote:I would love to see a unified Korea in my lifetime. Not sure that will happen, but announcing the end of the war is not something I thought I'd see anytime soon. I think when North Korea saw the winds change with China, and the new sanctions that actually hurt, they had to finally just evaluate their place in the workd. It seems like an easy decision for a logical person. But leadership there has been nowhere near logical. I hope this progresses well.

I hope it also eventually means a better life for the North Korean people.

ohsherrie wrote:I doubt that there are so many cases of cannibals asking to be devoured that the webmaster would have much problem policing it for themselves, obviously the prostitution is a little harder to control so they would rather shut down the forums where it is a natural fit than Police it that closely.

I've obviously never been to either website, but do they have gun forums? I imagine it would be at least as easy to work out some kind of code for soliciting murder for hire on some of those. If that were to be the case would a law to stop it be infringing on those people's freedom of speech?

I agree that the foster parents should have had their guns in a safe where the kid couldn't get to them, but I wasn't asking who was at fault for him getting to the school with guns? I asked if forcing him into a psychiatric care, whether by law enforcement taking him into custody or through social services because of things he was saying would have infringed on his 1st amendment rights?

The one thing that hasn't been mentioned here about this subject is the sites that reside in what has been labeled "the dark web" . These are sites that are not indexed and therefore do not show up in standard browsers. Sites that can be accessed by special browsers such as TOR which mask the users IP address. This is where a lot of the online illegal activity occurs. Activity such as sex trafficking, human trafficking, pedo porn, illegal drugs, illegal firearms and the sale of stolen identities and CC info.. The FBI and DOJ have dedicated task forces for searching out, monitoring, shutting down sites and arresting those that operate and use such sites.

I don't think anything should be allowed on line that isn't allowed elsewhere but if they must exist, as they inevitably do elsewhere, then they need to stay in the dark until they can be shut down.

Not backwards at all. I have no problem with pot and as I've said, I think it should be legalized and taxed. I don't care if a woman sells herself as long as she isn't spreading disease and other associated criminal activity. Since there is no way prostitution will ever be stopped maybe it should be legalized and regulated for health purposes and to keep it out of the realms of scummy criminal activity. I just don't think stopping potentially dangerous criminal activity online is infringing on freedom of speech.

If people are looking for real relationships there are sites for that where they don't talk in codes.

The federal judge presiding over the Michael Cohen case finds herself at the center of one of the toughest legal brawls of the Trump era -- but District Judge Kimba Wood is no stranger to the spotlight.

She has a colorful and potentially controversial past that could arise as the case involving President Trump's personal attorney moves forward. Trump allies were quick to note that Wood once was considered for attorney general by then-President Bill Clinton -- and she even officiated the wedding of left-wing billionaire George Soros.

Former Trump adviser and current Fox News contributor Sebastian Gorka said Wood should recuse herself. “Now she has power over the lawyer who works for the man who beat Bill’s wife in the 2016 election,” he tweeted. “WHERE’S THE THE RECUSAL?”

At the same time, the judge has a tough reputation and may end up a fitting addition to a courtroom cast that involves some of New York's most outspoken figures.

New York Times reporter and Trump-watcher Maggie Haberman mused that Wood’s “colorful personal history is sort of perfect for a Trump associate trial.”

In 2013, Wood presided over the marriage of Soros to his third wife Tamiko Bolton in Bedford, N.Y.

The Hungarian-American billionaire is known for his promotion and enormous funding of left-wing causes worldwide. According to Open Secrets, Soros pumped $10 million into Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign -- making him one of her top donors. Politico reported that his total funding of left-wing and Democratic causes during the 2016 cycle was $25 million.

Predictably, Soros is no fan of Trump, calling him a “danger to the world” at the World Economic Forum earlier this year.But Soros isn’t Wood’s only liberal connection. While she was nominated to the U.S. District Court by Republican President Ronald Reagan, she was thrust in the national spotlight in 1993 when she was chosen by Democratic President Bill Clinton to be attorney general.

The Clinton White House informed reporters that they expected to announce Wood, only for her to withdraw from consideration amid a public firestorm over revelations she had hired an illegal immigrant as a nanny. Wood was the second Clinton pick for attorney general to be taken down by the controversy that became known as “Nannygate.” Wood’s name was floated only after Clinton’s first pick, Zoe Baird, had withdrawn after it was revealed she too hired illegal immigrants for household work. According to a contemporaneous New York Times report, the Clinton White House was furious about Wood’s revelation as officials said they had asked specifically about her household help after the Baird fiasco, but Wood said she did not mislead the White House.She had also raised eyebrows at the time over revelations that she had briefly trained as a Playboy bunny in the '60s, something White House officials feared could lead to some mockery. The Times’ account of Wood’s withdrawal from consideration reports that the White House had been limited for picks after the president, pressed by then-first lady Hillary Clinton, demanded the post be filled by a woman. Wood, although a respected jurist, was seen as lacking law-enforcement and managerial credentials. Consequently, when the “Nannygate” controversy arose, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee including then-Delaware Senator Joe Biden were not keen to fight for the nomination. Janet Reno was eventually nominated and confirmed for the post.

According to The New York Daily News, she has a reputation for being a tough judge, particularly over her sentencing of "junk bond king" Michael Milken to 10 years in prison. The Daily News also reported that in 1995 she was branded the “Love Judge” when the wife of multimillionaire Frank Richardson found his diary, filled with entries about his relationship with Wood. Cohen is under criminal investigation as part of a grand jury probe into his personal conduct and business dealings, including a $130,000 payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in exchange for her silence about an alleged sexual encounter with the married Trump in 2006.

Federal judge says Trump's personal attorney can review the documents seized in the FBI raids of his home, office and hotel room. Laura Ingle reports from New York.VideoJudge weighs special team to review Trump-Cohen recordsOn Monday, Wood denied a request from Cohen to review the documents seized at his home and office last week before prosecutors see them.

Wood said that she had faith in the Justice Department's so-called "taint team" to isolate materials protected by attorney-client privilege, but added that she would consider allowing a neutral third party requested by Cohen to weigh in.

It was also revealed on Monday that Fox News host Sean Hannity was the third individual who received Cohen's legal help. Hannity has since clarified that while he had “brief discussions” about legal questions, they never involved any matter between him and a third party.

Fox News said in a statement on Tuesday, "While FOX News was unaware of Sean Hannity's informal relationship with Michael Cohen and was surprised by the announcement in court yesterday, we have reviewed the matter and spoken to Sean and he continues to have our full support."

This is all anybody should need to see to realize how politically corrupt our justice system has become. Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 to shut up and that was ok, but Trumps lawyer gets raided for possibly paying a whore $130,000.

verslibre wrote:"Unifying" SK & NK would be like mixing oil and water. Not happening.

I think it's best to say never say never. A lot of people including our illustrious news media where thinking HRC was a "shoe in" for POTUS and Trump in no way could become POTUS. Yet they all were proven to be wrong.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

ohsherrie wrote:I don't think anything should be allowed on line that isn't allowed elsewhere but if they must exist, as they inevitably do elsewhere, then they need to stay in the dark until they can be shut down.

My point is that this nefarious illegal activity is more prevalent in "the dark web" then the more public, corporate owned websites. I think that it is first the duty of those that operate websites to purge and report illegal activity from their sites. If they do not or if it is proven that they are involved, encourage or "look the other way" with such activity then the government should have the authority to step in.

Last edited by Boomchild on Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

The federal judge presiding over the Michael Cohen case finds herself at the center of one of the toughest legal brawls of the Trump era -- but District Judge Kimba Wood is no stranger to the spotlight.

She has a colorful and potentially controversial past that could arise as the case involving President Trump's personal attorney moves forward. Trump allies were quick to note that Wood once was considered for attorney general by then-President Bill Clinton -- and she even officiated the wedding of left-wing billionaire George Soros.

The long and short of it is, she just another "fixer" for the deep state.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

ohsherrie wrote:If people are looking for real relationships there are sites for that where they don't talk in codes.

If you're following this story closely, legit dating sites (like Monker's fav Plenty of Fish) is exactly where solicitation ads have now migrated to. Watch for those sites to shut down next (no surprise there). Since 1996, websites were shielded from liability. Without this immunity, there would be no Facebook, Twitter, no YouTube. By changing the law to hold them accountable, Congress has just struck a twin blow against free speech and internet innovation. It's that simple. Why would any website now host user-generated content if they face potential prosecution?

"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater

ohsherrie wrote:I don't think anything should be allowed on line that isn't allowed elsewhere but if they must exist, as they inevitably do elsewhere, then they need to stay in the dark until they can be shut down.

My point is that this nefarious illegal activity is more prevalent in "the dark web" then the more public, corporate owned websites. I think that it is first the duty of those that operate websites to purge and report illegal activity from their sites. If they do not or if it is proven that they are involved, encourage or "look the other way" with such activity then the government should have the authority to step in.

I totally agree, but since we haven't been able to stop slimey behavior altogether in the brick and mortar world they are probably going to exist in the virtual one. If they are going to be here then better in the virtual underbelly than out here where anybody can stumble into it. Also easier for authorities if they're all in the same place.